ie8 fix

Europe opens antitrust investigation into Samsung patents

By | January 31, 2012, 3:49am PST

Summary: Samsung is being formally investigated by the European Commission’s antitrust authorities, over claims it “abusively” distorted competition in the region.

Samsung is in hot water with the Europeans; a position no company would like to be in.

The European Commission, the executive body for Europe’s 27 member states, has opened a formal investigation into Samsung, only months after it said it would look into the matter.

In November, the Commission began scrutinising Samsung, examining whether the enforcement of standards-essential patents was fair.

But the announcement of a formal investigation today means that the Commission will examine the case “as a matter of priority”.

The investigation seeks to determine whether Samsung has “abusively” used protected patents to “distort competition” in the mobile market of phones and smartphones.

These protected patents, also known as “standards-essential”, enable devices and networks to comply with an industry standard, such as 3G or Wi-Fi networking.

In a statement, the Commission said that last year, Samsung sought sales injunctions against competitors, including Apple, from selling devices that infringed its patents that Samsung owns. Yet in 1998, around the time of the 3G ‘boom’, Samsung made a promise to the Commission to license its patents-essential to others on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

“The Commission will examine whether such behaviour amounts to an abuse of a dominant position,” prohibited by European law, the statement added.

Samsung has been seen to be heavy handed in its enforcement of 3G patents against Apple in recent months. The Commission said it would act based on Samsung’s claims of patent infringement in European courts last year.

Samsung was forced by the Commission to licence its patents on a fair basis, but Apple claims it did not receive such terms until after Samsung had sued it.

FOSS Patents author Florian Mueller notes that “the EU’s concerns appeared to relate to Samsung’s, not Apple’s, conduct.” He added that: “The Commission said that its concerns related to patents essential to wireless telecommunications standards, and Apple has never sued anyone over a patent of that kind.”

If a company is found to be in breach of European antitrust and competition laws, the Commission can fine a company up to 10 percent of its global turnover. In Samsung’s case, this could be in the region of $10—15 billion (€8—11 billion).

Image source: Alexander Koellner/Flickr.

Related:

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Zack Whittaker, a criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, Canterbury, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

Disclosure

Zack Whittaker

I worked briefly with Microsoft UK in 2006 but no longer have any connection with the company. Regardless, I remain impartial and unbiased in my views.

I don't hold any stock or shares, investments or industrial secrets in any company, but have signed confidentiality agreements with a number of UK and U.S. organisations, whose names I am not at liberty to disclose.

I was involved with Kent Union, the University of Kent's student union, undertaking voluntary, non-salaried, elected positions between early 2009 and mid-2010.

No other company, body, government department, non-governmental organisation or third sector organisation employs me or pays me a salary in any capacity whatsoever.

As a freelance journalist, whenever expenses are given and taken by a company that is not CBS Interactive, these will be disclosed in each relevant post to ensure transparency.

I currently work with a UK law enforcement unit. Details of which are restricted, but this is an entirely separate position which bears no connection to other work.

(Updated: 23rd October 2011)

Biography

Zack Whittaker

Zack Whittaker, criminologist who studied at the University of Kent, UK, is a journalist, writer and broadcaster.

After studying criminology at university, though still in his early-20's, he has already had a series unconventional work and voluntary positions. He has worked with researchers studying neurological illnesses like Tourette's syndrome (which he suffers from), has given lectures on the nature of disabilities in the public community, and occasionally ends up speaking on television and radio discussing the events of the day.

He first had academic work published at the age of 22, then still an undergraduate, and has been cited by a wide range of publications: from the Huffington Post, Business Insider, AllThingsDigital, The Atlantic Wire and CBS News.

51
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

Can someone explain what NonZealot is going on about?
msalzberg 31st Jan
Apparently I've admitted something and therefore he's 'won.'

'Won' what?
Wait, What? Last time I checked they weren't the company that was being the aggressor in the cell phone market.
@Peter Perry Oh?! You're sure about that are you?
0 Votes
+ -
@jeremychappell Yeah, name me one company they have gone after who participated in these pacts that hasn't gone after them first!
0 Votes
+ -
And what does that have to do
MacCanuck 31st Jan
with reneging on FRAND promises and obligations?

Nice try at a deflection though, but... FAIL!

If the story's content is accurate, it appears Samsung only appeared to became "reasonable" with it's patents once it sued Apple to make it look like Apple was the one out of line, ie, Samsung changed "the rules of the game" midstream only to cast itself in a better light.
@MacCanuck Everything! The company filed a countersuit to give itself some leverage against Apple but they did not fire the first shot.

To me, it isn't a deflection at all because FRAND is about the fair use of Patents and Licensing... It was designed to protect the company that holds the patents.
@Peter Perry

"The company filed a countersuit to give itself some leverage against Apple but they did not fire the first shot."

Sorry but under the FRAND "fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory" license terms Samsung agreed to, Samsung can't turn around and use their patent as leverage against a competitor, which they are accused of doing. This would be considered anti-competitive and goes against everything FRAND stands for. This is not the playground where one kid socks the other kid because he/she started first. Read-up some more on FRAND.

Apple felt the fees Samsung was charging them was "excessive" and "unreasonable". Under the FRAND license agreement that Samsung signed, they have to charge a reasonable fee to everyone.
0 Votes
+ -
And non-discriminatory...
Bruizer 31st Jan
@MacCanuck

So Samsung can't decide to milk more money from Apple when compared to ZTE for example.
0 Votes
+ -
@Peter Perry - Apple fired the "first shot" - as it were - because Samsung slavishly copied the iPad from the packaging to the USB-A/C power adapter to the general look and feel of the device with their Galaxy Tab 2. And before you bleat about how this is some attack on Android and spew the BS about it being a rectangle show me where the lawsuits are against Motorola Mobility for the Xoom, Amazon for the Kindle Fire, Samsung for the original Tab.
0 Votes
+ -
Please don't make false statements
toddybottom_z 31st Jan
@Pete
"Samsung slavishly copied the iPad"

This has never been proven in a court of law. Actually, the final rulings that have been made have all gone against Apple. Apple won a couple preliminary injunctions which were quickly overturned.

So please do not spread legally proven falsehoods. Samsung did not copy Apple.
0 Votes
+ -
@Pete: Steve Jobs stated it himself
toddybottom_z 31st Jan
"And before you bleat about how this is some attack on Android"

Steve Jobs himself stated that he wanted to destroy Android. That Apple is attacking Android is undeniable, unless you want to call Steve Jobs a liar?
0 Votes
+ -
That would be Googorola.
Bruizer 31st Jan
@Peter Perry

Last time I checked.
Probably Apple bribing officials haha!!
@danjames2012 Nothing to do with the merits of the case then?
@jeremychappell Why don't you post some facts? Would probably work better than snide remarks with nothing to back them up!
0 Votes
+ -
Umm, Apple had refused to licence the FRAND patents in question, which put the ball in a different court, and different legal sport altogether. Samsung *probably* hasn't done anything wrong here, other than *not* trying to enforce them until it was attacked by a company (Apple) who wasn't paying their FRAND fees. Strictly speaking, Samsung didn't bully Apple on these, but did pull them out when Apple decided to go on the offensive. Samsung should have sued Apple much much sooner on the FRAND's after Apple refused, rather than being nice about it. That has probably hurt its case.
@admiraljkb
Apple is blowing smoke here and zdnet it's making favors by quoting a M$ patent stooge: http://techrights.org/2012/01/30/linux-and-a-lobbyist-for-hire/
@The Linux Geek - Sorry, I see no statements from Apple (or Samsung for that matter). Are you trying to say the European Commission is blowing smoke? Why would they??
0 Votes
+ -
@The Linux Geek And HOW is Apple blowing smoke here when there is not even a comment from Apple? And what does that obviously biased article you linked to have to do with any of this?
0 Votes
+ -
From the story, it appears Samsung was not keeping to it's FRAND promises and agreement in attempting to screw Apple over with terms (fees) different from other licensees, which is not what FRAND is supposed to be about.

Again from the story, Samsung only wanted to appear to become "reasonable" (by changing the patent terms/fees) once it sued Apple to make Apple appear to be the bad guy.

Apple had every right to refuse to be treated differently if the patents in question were available per FRAND.

But unlike you, jumping to conclusions and automatically casting Apple as the villain, that's what the investigation is about.
@MacCanuck You crack me up... I said Samsung wasn't the aggressor and you challenged that statement... Now you're admitting that Apple fired the first shot here and I never mentioned their name in my first post!
@MacCanuck
I imagine that Samsung is really looking at exchanging patent agreements with Apple as a reasonable exchange. Now if Apple is unwilling to make such an exchange, is it unreasonable for Samsung to charge Apple higher fees to force them to come to terms?

The term "reasonable" is somewhat ambiguous.
@kyron.gustafson

While 'reasonable' may be somewhat ambiguous, 'non-discriminatory' is not.
0 Votes
+ -
Apple fired the first shot?

The post I replied to cast blame on Apple because it supposedly refused to sign on with Samsung. If that was the case and Apple refused because Samsung reversed it's FRAND promise, how does that make Apple the bad guy?

Samsung apparently agreed (irrevocably) to FRAND it's patents so it appears to be the one in the wrong if it attempted to charge or treat Apple differently from other licensees.

That's what's being investigated.
@admiraljkb

Apple felt the fees Samsung was charging them was "excessive" and "unreasonable". Under the FRAND license agreement that Samsung signed, they have to charge a reasonable fee to everyone. Now that it's being investigated, we will find out exactly what Samsung was trying to extort from Apple. Apple was the one who filled the complaint to the EU so I don't think they have anything to hide.

There were recently a similar case with Nokia FRAND patents. Apple felt Nokia was charging them above what they charge everyone else so they did not agree to the terms. Nokia sued Apple and the two sides agreed on a more reasonable license fee at the end. What Samsung is doing (which brought attention to the EU) is using their FRAND patent as weapons/leverage in their countersuit against Apple. Trying to get their phones and devices banned in multiple countries.

Samsung has been flailing badly lately. You can't just ignore laws and terms you agreed to Samsung.
0 Votes
+ -
Coming to Terms
kyron.gustafson@... Updated - 31st Jan
@dave95.
As your example demonstrated. Both sides used their patents to leverage for better terms. Just as Apple and Samsung are doing.

Although Apple is probably hoping the EU commision will throw them a bone.

Samsung has probably done this before with other patent holders. So I wouldn't call their action discriminatory.
@kyron.gustafson

The point of FRAND terms is so that you can't leverage the patents that are part of a standard.
0 Votes
+ -
apple is bribing bureaucrats in EU
The Linux Geek 31st Jan
in order to stifle innovation brought by the FOSS revolution.
This is a smoke screen to hide apple's dirty deeds.
I expect M$ to instigate the EU commission against google too.
@The Linux Geek Oh they won't be getting many more free passes, they will likely be the next company that the DOJ sets their sites on because, they always go after the big dog.
0 Votes
+ -
@The Linux Geek What revolution?
0 Votes
+ -
Just wondering. It seems like all of Apple's competitors have FRAND patents but I've never heard of any of Apple's patents being determined as essential.
0 Votes
+ -
The answer is yes.
Bruizer 31st Jan
@toddybottom_z

Now for an exercise to educate yourself and the others, find out what they are.
0 Votes
+ -
Didn't think so
toddybottom_z 31st Jan
@Bruizer
Thanks. Apple does have some good patents on rectangular tablets though.
@NonZealot

IEEE 1394
0 Votes
+ -
@toddybottom_z Then I suggest you do some research for yourself.
0 Votes
+ -
I got what I wanted
toddybottom_z 31st Jan
@Pete "athynz" Athens
Apple fanbois like msalzberg can't hide behind the "Apple can never be investigated for any anti-trust activities because they have no monopolies." excuse.

I got exactly what I wanted from this exchange.
@toddybottom_z Apple obviously holds countless technology patents (some questionable, some less so -- like all tech companies). I do not believe, nor could I find evidence of Apple holding many (or any) cellular communications patents, which isn't surprising, since they came to the party quite late.

But that actually works in Apple's favor. If all the cellular pioneers -- Samsung, Nokia, Motorola, etc. -- have to offer their patents according to FRAND terms, then Apple has the right to license those technologies just like everyone else. On the other hand, Apple's patents (those that stand up in court), are not considered standards-essential so it does not have to license them under FRAND terms, meaning that it's free to withhold them or charge whatever it wants for them. For the cell companies, it's a sucky deal. But that's why the FRAND terms exist: so that companies that want to get in the game can, at the same prices charged to everyone else.
0 Votes
+ -
Samsung isn't a monopoly so no antitrust
toddybottom_z Updated - 31st Jan
Whenever Apple does anything anticompetitive we are constantly told that Apple can't be investigated for antitrust activities because they don't have a monopoly. Since Samsung doesn't have a monopoly, the EU must immediately stop its investigation.

Unless those Apple fanbois were wrong?
@NonZealot

Holding a patent that is part of a standard gives the patent owner a monopoly. FRAND agreements are the means by which the patent owner avoids anti-trust issues. By charging one competitor more than another, it's quite possible to have fallen afoul of the "non-discriminatory" part of the obligation the patent holder agrees to in order to have their patent as part of a standard.
0 Votes
+ -
@msalzberg
With 10% of the market. Got it.
@NonZealot

The market share of a patent is 100%.
0 Votes
+ -
Apple has a lot of monopolies then
toddybottom_z 31st Jan
@msalzberg
So Apple is wide open to antitrust investigations. Good to know. Apple fanbois like you constantly say that Apple can't be anticompetitive because they have no monopolies.

Thanks for the info. I'll remember it.
@NonZealot

If Apple abuses a patent that is part of a standard, and is thus covered by FRAND agreements, then of course they could be investigated for anti-trust. There is no proof, or even any suspicion, that they have done so.
@toddybottom_z

Ummm.... reading for lack of comprehension? If a company holds a patent required by a standard -- you did read the mention of WiFi and 3G as examples in the story? -- they are required to make that patent available under FRAND terms. Apple does hold some patents covered by those terms but has never been caught using those patents contrary to the terms. From what I've read, Apple is claiming that Samsung wanted to charge Apple fees that were well above those charged to other manufacturers for use of Samsung patents that were covered by FRAND. It appears that they have sufficient evidence to back up those claims that an investigation was launched.

As for your comment about a monopoly not existing, if a Samsung patent covers technology required to meet a standard, Samsung does hold a monopoly since you would need to license that patent to be compliant. No license, no 3G for instance.
@DNSB
Interesting. We constantly get told that Apple can't have a monopoly because it doesn't have 100% of any market.

Interesting. I guess some Apple fanbois like msalzberg are liars.
@NonZealot

Love it. You respond to DNSB's explanation of your misunderstanding of a simple concept by calling me a liar. Hard to argue with that reasoning.
0 Votes
+ -
@toddybottom_z "If Apple isn't a monopoly then Samsung must not be a monopoly". That's pretty circular logic and very sloppy thinking on your part old boy. If Samsung is doing something shady then they deserve to be investigated. If Apple is doing something shady then they deserve to be investigated. IMHO BOTH companies have some skeletons they'd rather keep hidden so the question becomes who's skeletons would be more harmful?

I say let the EU investigate both of them.
0 Votes
+ -
Not my point at all
toddybottom_z Updated - 31st Jan
@Pete "athynz" Athens
"If Apple isn't a monopoly then Samsung must not be a monopoly".

At no point did I try to make that argument. My argument all along has been to highlight the foolish argument that Apple fanbois like msalzberg keep trying to make which is that Apple can't be anticompetitive because they don't have 100% of {insert market here}.

I won because I got msalzberg to admit that Apple does have multiple monopolies, something he has denied vehemently in the past.

"I say let the EU investigate both of them."

Yes, and it makes me very happy that this is happening as we speak. The EU is investigating Apple right now for its shady anticompetitive ebook practices.
Apparently I've admitted something and therefore he's 'won.'

'Won' what?
@toddybottom_z Samsung has a monopoly on its patented technologies: if anyone wants to use them, they must pay Samsung for that right. So, it's 100 percent marketshare for those patented technologies.

Apple, on the other hand, doesn't have any standards-essential patents (none that I'm aware of, though I'm hardly an expert on Apple's patent portfolio), thus they aren't subject to antitrust rules ... at least not yet.

But as Android enthusiasts are quick to point out, Android dominates iOS and iPhone sales. That leaves the tablet space ... but Amazon just sold 6 million Kindle Fires -- about 40% of what Apple sold in the same quarter. Plus there's the Nook and about a zillion Android tabs that must've sold several million units, combined. Based on those numbers, Apple might have, say, 50% marketshare (at least from that quarter's sales ... installed base obviously changes that somewhat, but I honestly don't have the time to look up everyone's tablets sales for the last few years). It's simple math: 50% != 100%, so no monopoly, no antitrust.

Apple's definitely in a somewhat enviable position, because they can't (yet) be forced to license their patented technologies to others, since they aren't standards-essential. But I suppose if someone manages to find a way to make it "essential" that all tablets look just like an iPad, perhaps certain Apple patents might become standards-essential. Meanwhile, it seems they have a (slight) legal advantage, in that they can't be discriminated against for necessarily standardized wireless communications patents. As for their own design patents ... those don't really seem to be winning them many battles, which, ironically is probably helping them avoid becoming a monopoly and further ensuring continued access to the patents they need to produce wireless-capable products.
@toddybottom_z are you actually dumb? Is that it? What is so hard to understand. Samsung promised to license essential technology way back when and they failed to comply. Over. Enough with the jibber jabber already! Do you even know what a monopoly is?

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix